Incoherent english immersion and california proposition 227

Urban Review

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 207-220

  Tórrez, Nena M ^a   Murillo Jr , Enrique G ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bilingual education; Legal interpretation; Policy implementation; Proposition 227

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247737435     PISSN: 00420972     EISSN: 15731960     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010314020649     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. California Department of Education (1997). Guidelines for Language, Academic, and Special-Education Services Required for Limited-English-Proficient Students in California Public Schools, K-12. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
2. Castaneda v. Pickard. 648 U.S. 989 (1981).
3. Flood, J., and Lapp, D. (December 1996-January 1997). Literacy instruction for students acquiring English: Moving beyond the immersion debate. Reading Teacher 50(4): 356-366.
4. Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, J., Gutiérrez, K., Stritikus, T., and Curry, J. (April 2000) The Initial Impact of Proposition 227 on the Instruction of English Learners. Davis: UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute Education Policy Center University of California.
5. Grant, C. A. (1994). Best practices in teacher preparation for urban school: Lessons from multicultural teacher education literature. Action in Teacher Education 16(3): 1-18.
6. Lau v. Nichols. (1974). 414 U.S. 563.
7. San Diego County Office of Education (1998). Proposition 227 Handbook. San Diego: Author.
8. Zehr, M. (2000). Bilingual instruction in California less consistent since proposition 227. Education Week, May 3.